# Full text of "Via Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley & Mach to necessarily fractal large-scale structure in the Universe"

## See other formats

Via Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley & Mach to necessarily fractal large-scale structure in the Universe D. F. Roscoe February 21, 2008 Abstract The claim that the large scale structure of the Universe is heirarchical has a very long history going back at least to Charlier's papers of the early 20th century. In recent years, the debate has centered largely on the works of Sylos Labini, Joyce, Pietronero and others, who have made the quantative claim that the large scale structure of the Universe is quasi- fractal with fractal dimension D « 2. There is now a concensus that this is the case on medium scales, with the main debate revolving around what happens on the scales of the largest available modern surveys. Apart from the (essentially sociological) problem that their thesis is in absolute conflict with any concept of a Universe with an age of « 14 billion years or, indeed, of any finite age, the major generic difficulty faced by the proponents of the heirarchical hypothesis is that, beyond hypothesizing the case (eg: Nottale's Scale Gravity), there is no obvious mechanism which would lead to large scale structure being non-trivially fractal. This paper, which is a realization of a worldview that has its origins in the ideas of Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach, provides a surprising resolution to this problem: in its essence, the paper begins with a statement of the primitive self-evident relationship which states that, in the universe of our experience, the amount of material, M, in a sphere of redshift radius R z is a monotonic increasing function of R z . However, because the precise relationship between any Earth- bound calibration of radial distance and R z is unknowable then fundamental theories cannot be constructed in terms of R z , but only in terms of a radial measure, R say, calibrated against known physics. The only certainty is that, for any realistic calibration, there will exist a monotonic increasing relationship between R z and R so that we have M = f(R) for a monotonic increasing function /. But the monotonicity implies R = f~ l {M) = g{M) which, in the absence of any prior calibration of R, can be interpreted as the definition of the radius of an astrophysical sphere in terms of the amount of mass it contains - which is the point of contact with the ideas of Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach. The development of this idea, and the resulting implications for the geometrical structure of physical space, leads necessarily to the final result, which is that large scale structure in the Universe of our experience is fractal of dimension D = 2. 1 1 Introduction: The analysis of this paper shows how, as a necessary consequence of a world-view that has its origins in the ideas of Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach, mass in an isotropic Universe is distributed according to for undertermined constants do, mo and mi so that, on very large scales, M ~ R 2 . Furthermore, it is shown that, in the limit of very large scales, the Universe approaches a state of perfect dynamical (not static) equilibrium. We begin with a brief review of the phenomenological arguments which led to the basic hy- pothesis that large-scale structure in the Universe is non-trivially fractal, and comment briefly on the ramifications to canonical cosmology if this hypothesis proves to be correct. We then give a brief account comparing and contrasting the two major world-views which have dominated thinking about the nature of the cosmos for over two thousand years before, finally, providing the quantitative development which leads to the main result of this paper. 1.1 The heirarchical Universe A basic assumption of the Standard Model of modern cosmology is that, on some scale, the universe is homogeneous; however, in early responses to suspicions that the accruing data was more consistent with Charlier's conceptions [U EJ [3] of an hierarchical universe than with the requirements of the Standard Model, de Vaucouleurs [4] showed that, within wide limits, the available data satisfied a mass distribution law M ps r 13 , whilst Peebles [5] found M ~ r 123 . The situation, from the point of view of the Standard Model, continued to deteriorate with the growth of the data-base to the point that, Baryshev et al [6] state ...the scale of the largest inhomogeneities (discovered to date) is comparable with the extent of the surveys, so that the largest known structures are limited by the boundaries of the survey in which they are detected. For example, several redshift surveys of the late 20th century, such as those performed by Huchra et al [7], Giovanelli and Haynes [8], De Lapparent et al [9], Broadhurst et al [10], Da Costa et al [H] and Vettolani et al [12] etc discovered massive structures such as sheets, filaments, su- perclusters and voids, and showed that large structures are common features of the observable universe; the most significant conclusion drawn from all of these surveys was that the scale of the largest inhomogeneities observed in the samples was comparable with the spatial extent of those surveys themselves. In the closing years of the century, several quantitative analyses of both pencil-beam and wide-angle surveys of galaxy distributions were performed: three examples are given by Joyce, Montuori & Labini [13] who analysed the CfA2-South catalogue to find fractal behaviour with D = 1.9±0.1; Labini & Montuori [T4] analysed the APM-Stromlo survey to find fractal behaviour 2 with D = 2.1 ±0.1, whilst Labini, Montuori & Pietronero [T5] analysed the Perseus-Pisces survey to find fractal behaviour with D = 2.0 ± 0.1. There are many other papers of this nature, and of the same period, in the literature all supporting the view that, out to 30 - AOh^Mpc at least, galaxy distributions appeared to be fractal with D^2. This latter view became widely accepted (for example, see Wu, Lahav & Rees [H]), and the open question became whether or not there was transition to homogeneity on some sufficiently large scale. For example, Scaramella et al [32] analyse the ESO Slice Project redshift survey, whilst Martinez et al [H] analyse the Perseus-Pisces, the APM-Stromlo and the 1.2-Jy IRAS redshift surveys, with both groups claiming to find evidence for a cross-over to homogeneity at large scales. At around about this time, the argument reduced to a question of statistics (Sylos Labini & Gabrielli [TH], Gabrielli & Sylos Labini [20], Pietronero & Sylos Labini [21]): basically, the pro- ponents of the fractal view began to argue that the statistical tools (eg correlation function methods) widely used to analyse galaxy distributions by the proponents of the opposite view are deeply rooted in classical ideas of statistics and implicitly assume that the distributions from which samples are drawn are homogeneous in the first place. Recently, Hogg et al [22], having ac- cepted these arguments, applied the techniques argued for by the pro-fractal community (which use the conditional density as an appropriate statistic) to a sample drawn from Release Four of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They claim that the application of these methods does show a turnover to homogeneity at the largest scales thereby closing, as they see it, the argument. In response, Labini et al [23] have criticized their paper on the basis that the strength of the conclu- sions drawn is unwarrented given the deficencies of the sample - in effect, that it is not big enough. To summarize, the proponents of non-trivially fractal large-scale structure have won the ar- gument out to medium distances and the controversy now revolves around the largest scales encompassed by the SDSS. 1.2 Theoretical implications The notion of non-trivially fractal large-scale structure in the Universe is highly problematic for proponents of any form of big-bang cosmology, for two reasons: 1. any form of big-bang cosmology implies a finite age for the Universe (approximately 14 billion years in the canonical picture). By contrast, a non-trivially fractal Universe implies the existence of vast individual structures which cannot possibly form on any determinate time scale. So there is an obvious conflict; 2. if there is non-trivially fractal structure in the Universe then, ideally, the mechanism for the formation of such structure should be open to a theoretical understanding. But the equations of General Relativity are hyperbolic so that universal structure at any epoch is always going to be determined primarily by initial conditions - in other words, large- scale fractal structure in the Universe cannot be explained within the confines of General Relativity, but only in terms of conditions which are external to it. 3 It follows that the hypothesis that large-scale structure in the Universe is non-trivially fractal and the hypothesis that General Relativity is the fundamentally correct theory by which gravitational processes in the Universe can be understood, are in direct opposition to each other. This implies that, if we are to take the fractal hypothesis seriously (as the phenomenology suggests we should), then only a radical review of gravitational theory can hope to provide any hope of understanding how such structure can occur. 2 A brief history of ideas of space and time The conception of space as the container of material objects is generally considered to have originated with Democritus and, for him, it provided the stage upon which material things play out their existence - emptiness exists and is that which is devoid of the attribute of extended- ness (although, interestingly, this latter conception seems to contain elements of the opposite view upon which we shall comment later). For Newton [24], an extension of the Democritian conception was basic to his mechanics and, for him: ... absolute space, by its own nature and irrespective of anything external, always remains immovable and similar to itself. Thus, the absolute space of Newton was, like that of Democritus, the stage upon which material things play out their existence - it had an objective existence for Newton and was primary to the order of things. In a similar way, time - universal time, an absolute time which is the same everywhere - was also considered to possess an objective existence, independently of space and independently of all the things contained within space. The fusion of these two conceptions provided Newton with the reference system - spatial coordinates defined at a particular time - by means of which, as Newton saw it, all motions could be quantified in a way which was completely independent of the objects concerned. It is in this latter sense that the Newtonian conception seems to depart fundamentally from that of Democritus - if emptiness exists and is devoid of the attribute of extendedness then, in modern terms, the emptiness of Democritus can have no metric associated with it. But it is precisely Newton's belief in absolute space & time (with the implied virtual clocks and rods) that makes the Newtonian conception a direct antecedent of Minkowski spacetime - that is, of an empty space and time within which it is possible to have an internally consistent discussion of the notion of metric. The contrary view is generally considered to have originated with Aristotle (25j [26] for whom there was no such thing as a void - there was only the plenum within which the concept of the empty place was meaningless and, in this, Aristotle and Leibniz [27] were at one. It fell to Leibniz, however, to take a crucial step beyond the Aristotelian conception: in the debate of Clarke-Leibniz (1715~1716) |28| in which Clarke argued for Newton's conception, Leibniz made three arguments of which the second was: Motion and position are real and detectable only in relation to other objects ... there- fore empty space, a void, and so space itself is an unnecessary hypothesis. That is, Leibniz introduced a relational concept into the Aristotelian world view - what we call space is a projection of relationships between material bodies into the perceived world whilst 4 what we call time is the projection of ordered change into the perceived world. Of the three arguments, this latter was the only one to which Clarke had a good objection - essentially that accelerated motion, unlike uniform motion, can be perceived without reference to external bodies and is therefore, he argued, necessarily perceived with respect to the absolute space of Newton. It is of interest to note, however, that in rebutting this particular argument of Leibniz, Clarke, in the last letter of the correspondence, put his finger directly upon one of the crucial consequences of a relational theory which Leibniz had apparently not realized (but which Mach much later would) stating as absurd that: ... the parts of a circulating body (suppose the sun) would lose the vis centrifuga arising from their circular motion if all the extrinsic matter around them were anni- hilated. This letter was sent on October 29th 1716 and Leibniz died on November 14th 1716 so that we were never to know what Leibniz's response might have been. Notwithstanding Leibniz's arguments against the Newtonian conception, nor Berkeley's contem- porary criticisms [29], which were very similar to those of Leibniz and are the direct antecedents of Mach's, the practical success of the Newtonian prescription subdued any serious interest in the matter for the next 150 years or so until Mach himself picked up the torch. In effect, he answered Clarke's response to Leibniz's second argument by suggesting that the inertia of bodies is somehow induced within them by the large-scale distribution of material in the universe: ... / have remained to the present day the only one who insists upon referring the law of inertia to the earth and, in the case of motions of great spatial and temporal extent, to the fixed stars ... [30] thereby generalizing Leibniz's conception of a relational universe. Mach was equally clear in expressing his views about the nature of time: in effect, he viewed time (specifically Newton's absolute time) as a meaningless abstraction. All that we can ever do, he argued in [30], is to measure change within one system against change in a second system which has been defined as the standard (eg it takes half of one complete rotation of the earth about its own axis to walk thirty miles). Whilst Mach was clear about the origins of inertia (in the fixed stars), he did not hypothe- size any mechanism by which this conviction might be realized and it fell to others to make the attempt - a typical (although incomplete) list might include the names of Einstein [31 J, Sciama [32] . Hoyle & Narlikar and Sachs (33j [34] for approaches based on canonical ideas of spacetime, and the names of Ghosh [35] and Assis [36] for approaches based on quasi-Newtonian ideas. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of 20thC science that Einstein, having coined the name Mach's Principle for Mach's original suggestion and setting out to find a theory which satisfied the newly named Principle, should end up with a theory which, whilst albeit enormously suc- cessful, is more an heir to the ideas of Democritus and Newton than to the ideas of Aristotle and Leibniz. One only has to consider the special case solution of Minkowski spacetime, which is empty but metrical, to appreciate this fact. 5 3 From Leibniz to inertia as a relational property In this paper we take the general position of Leibniz about the relational nature of space to be self-evident and considered the question of spatial metric within this general conceptualization - that is, how is the notion of invariant spatial distance to be defined in the Leibnizian particle universe? To answer this question, we begin by considering the universe of our actual experience and show how it is possible to define an invariant measure for the radius of a statistically defined astrophysical sphere purely in terms of the mass it contains (to within a calibration exercise) ; we then show how the arguments deployed can be extended to define an invariant measure for an arbitrary spatial displacement within the statistically defined astrophysical sphere. In this way, we arrive at a theory within which a metrical three-space (generally non-Euclidean) is projected as a secondary construct out of the primary distribution of universal material. The question of how time arises within this formalism is particularly interesting: the simple requirement that time should be defined in such a way that Newton's Third Law is automati- cally satisfied has the direct consequence that time becomes an explicit measure of change within the system, very much as anticipated by Mach. The overall result is a quasi-classical (one-clock) theory of relational gravitation within which: • conditions of global dynamical equilibrium (that is, everywhere inertial) hold in the lim- iting case of a particular parameter tending to zero in which case the primary material is distributed fractally, D = 2; • point-source perturbations of the limiting case D = 2 distribution recover the usual New- tonian prescriptions for gravitational effects. The first of these two points refers to the universe that Leibniz was effectively considering in his debate with Clarke of 1715~1716 - one within which inertial effects play no part. The second refers to the universe that Clarke used to refute Liebniz's second argument, and the one that Mach had in mind - the universe of rotations and accelerations. Thus, given our Leibnizian worldview, we see that inertial effects themselves have their fundamental source in changed material relationships - they, too, are relational in nature. 3.1 The general argument Following in the tradition of Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach we argue that no consistent cosmology should admit the possibility of an internally consistent discussion of empty metri- cal space & time - unlike, for example, General Relativity which has the empty spacetime of Minkowski as a particular solution. Recognizing that the most simple space & time to visualize is one which is everywhere inertial, then our worldview is distilled into the elemental question: Is it possible to conceive a globally inertial space & time which is irreducibly associated with a non-trivial global mass distribution and, if so, what are the properties of this distribution? In pursuit of this question, we shall assume an idealized universe: 6 • which consists of an infinity of identical, but labelled, discrete 'galaxies' which possess an ordering property which allows us to say that galaxy Qo is nearer / further than galaxy Q\. The redshift properties of galaxies in the real universe are an example of such an ordering property; • within which 'time' is to be understood, in a qualitative way, as a measure of process or ordered change in the model universe; • within which there is at least one origin about which the distribution of material particles is statistically isotropic - meaning that the results of sampling along arbitrary lines of sight over sufficiently long characteristic 'times' are independent of the directions of lines of sight. 3.1.1 Astrophysical spheres and a mass-calibrated metric for radial displacements It is useful to discuss, briefly, the notion of spherical volumes defined on large astrophysical scales in the universe of our experience: whilst we can certainly give various precise operational defini- tions of spherical volumes on small scales, the process of giving such definitions on large scales is decidedly ambiguous. In effect, we have to suppose that redshift measurements are (statistically) isotropic when taken from an arbitrary point within the universe and that they vary monotoni- cally with distance on the large scales we are concerned with. With these assumptions, spherical volumes can be defined (statistically) in terms of redshift measurements - however, their radial calibration in terms of ordinary units (such as metres) becomes increasingly uncertain (and even unknown) on very large redshift scales. With these ideas in mind, the primary step taken in answer to the elemental question above is the recognition that, on large enough scales in the universe of our experience (say > 30 Mpc), the amount of matter in a given redshift-defined spherical volume in a given epoch can be con- sidered as a well-defined (monotonic) function of the sphere's (redshift) radius. It follows immediately that a redshift calibration of the radius of an astrophysical sphere at any given epoch has an equivalent mass-defined calibration. That is, the redshift-radius, R z say, of any spherical volume at any given time (whatever we might mean by time), calibrated in terms of mass, can be considered given by: where m is the mass concerned and / is an arbitrary monotonic increasing function of m. Thus, for any given /, we have immediately defined an invariant radial measurement such that it be- comes undefined in the absence of matter - in effect, we have, in principle, a metric which follows Leibniz in the required sense for any displacement which is purely radial. In the following, for the sake of simplicity only so that the basic ideas are most easily revealed, we make the assumption that all epochs are identical - that is, that the universe is in a steady-state - so that the t-dependence in (pp) can be dropped. Thus, in place of (pQ) we have R z = f(m, t) -> 5R Z « /(m + 5m, t) - f{m, t) (1) R z = fijn) — » 5R Z Ri f{m + 5m) — f(m) (2) 7 It transpires that this step has a significant consequence: • the theory being developed becomes automatically a one-clock quasi-classical theory. If we do not assume that all epochs are identical, we obtain a two-clock theory of the frame- time/particle proper time type. At this point, we can note that there will be some monotonic relation between a redshift-defined radial displacement R z and a 'conventional' radial measure, R say. Thus, the first of (j2J) above can be written as R z = g(R) = f(m) ^R = G(m) (3) for undefined monotonic increasing functions, g and G. 3.1.2 A mass-calibrated metric for arbitrary spatial displacements The foregoing provides a way of giving an invariant measure, defined in terms of mass, for displacements which are purely radial from the chosen origin. However, if, for example, a dis- placement is transverse to a radial vector, then the methodology fails. Thus, we must look for ways of generalizing the above ideas so that we can assign a mass-calibrated metric to arbitrary spatial displacements within the universe - that is, we must look for a way of assigning a metric to this universe. To this end, we consider the second of ([31) to be primary and then invert it to give a mass model, Mass ee m = M(R) = M(x\x 2 , x 3 ), for our rudimentary universe. Note that we make no assumptions about the relation of the spatial coordinates, (x 1 , x 2 , a; 3 ), to the redshift-defined radial displacement, R. Now consider the normal gradient vector n a = V a M (which does not require any metric stucture for its definition): the change in this arising from a displacement dx k can be formally expressed as dn a = V< (V a M) dx* , (4) where we assume that the geometrical connections required to give this latter expression an un- ambiguous meaning are the usual metrical connections - except of course, the metric tensor g a b of our curvilinear three-space is not yet defined. Now, since g a b is not yet defined, then the covariant counterpart of dx a , given by dx a = g a idx l , is also not yet defined. However, we note that since V a V&M is nonsingular, then (pj provides a 1:1 mapping between the contravariant vector dx a and the covariant vector dn a so that, in the absence of any other definition, we can define dn a to be the covariant form of dx a . In this latter case the metric tensor of our curvilinear three-space automatically becomes g ab = V a V 6 M (5) which, through the implied metrical connections, is a highly non-linear equation defining g a b to within the specification of M. The scalar product dS 2 = driidx 1 = gijdx l dx : > then provides an invariant measure for the magnitude of the infinitesimal three-space displacement, dx a . 8 The units of dS 2 are easily seen to be those of mass only and so, in order to make them those of length 2 - as dimensional consistency requires - we define the working invariant as ds 2 = (2r 2 /m )dS 2 , where r and m are scaling constants for the distance and mass scales respectively and the numerical factor has been introduced for later convenience. Finally, if we want to behave sensibly in the sense that ds 2 > whenever |dr| > and ds 2 = only when |dr| = 0, then we must replace the condition of non-singularity of g a b by the condition that it is strictly positive definite; in the physical context of the present problem, this will be considered to be a self-evident requirement. 3.2 Analogous interpretation of this definition of g a b It is useful to have an analogous interpretation of the foregoing definition of g a b (and hence in- variant distance) based upon how we, as primitive human beings, form intuitive assessments of "distance traversed" in our everyday lives without recourse to formal instruments. In effect, as we travel through a physical environment, we use our changing perspective of the observed scene in a given elapsed time to provide a qualitative assessment of "distance traversed" in that elapsed time. So, briefly, when walking across a tree-dotted landscape, the changing angular relationships between ouselves and the trees provides the information required to assess "distance traversed", measured in units of human-to-tree displacements, within that landscape. If we remove the perspective information - by, for example, obliterating the scene with dense fog - then all sense of "distance traversed" is destroyed. In the above definition, the part of the tree-dotted landscape is played by the mass-function, M, whilst the instantaneous "perspective" on this "landscape" is quantified by the normal vector n a and the change in perspective arising from a coordinate displacement, dx a , is quantified by the change in this normal vector, dn a . The invariant measure defined at ([6]) can then be considered to be based on a comparison between dx a (for which an invariant magnitude is required) and dn a . 3.3 The connection coefficients We have assumed that the geometrical connection coefficients can be defined in some sensible way. To do this, we simply note that, in order to define conservation laws (ie to do physics) in a Riemannian space, it is necessary to be have a generalized form of Gausses' divergence theorem in the space. This is certainly possible when the connections are defined to be the metrical connections, but it is by no means clear that it is ever possible otherwise. Consequently, the connections are assumed to be metrical and so g a b, given at (jSJ), can be written explicitly as (6) g ab = V a V b M = d 2 M (7) dx a dx b ab dx k ' 9 where Y k ah are the Christoffel symbols, and given by r fe 1 hi f d 9bj dg ja _ dg^ ab " 2 g \dx a dx b dxi 4 The metric tensor given in terms of the mass model We have so far made no assumptions about the nature of the coordinate system (x l ,x 2 ,x 3 ): so, we suppose that each of (x 1 ,^ 2 ,^ 3 ) is calibrated in the same units as R and that we have the usual Pythagorean relationship, R 2 = (x 1 ) 2 + (x 2 ) 2 + (x 3 ) 2 . With this understanding, it is shown, in appendix [Aj how, for an arbitrarily defined mass model, M(i2), j7]) can be exactly resolved to give an explicit form for g ab in terms of such a general M(R): defining the notation R = (*\x 2 ,* 3 ), $^I(R.R) = 1/? 2 and M> = this explicit form of g ab is given as g ab = A5 ab + Bx l x 3 5 ia 5 jb , (8) where _ d M + mi B _ A d M'M' for arbitrary constants d and mi where, as inspection of the structure of these expressions for A and B shows, do is a dimensionless scaling factor and mi has dimensions of mass. Noting now that M always occurs in the form d$M + mi, it is convenient to write M. = doM + mi, and to write A and B as M ( M M'M n 5 A direct physical calibration of the radial scale So far, we have assumed an arbitrary calibration for the radial scale; that is, we have assumed only that R = f(M) where / is an arbitrary monotonic increasing function. In the following, we show that the geodesic radial scale provides a unique definition for /. 5.1 The geodesic radial scale Using ((8]) and © in ([6]), and using the identity x % dx^bij = RdR then, with the notation $ = R 2 /2, we find, for an arbitrary displacement (ix, the invariant measure: ds = qadx l dx 3 = — — < —dx'dx^u - $ — — — dR which is valid for the arbitrary calibration R = f(M). If the displacement <ix is now constrained to be purely radial, then we find 2m /I V d M 10 Use of M! = dM/d§ and $ = R 2 /2 reduces this latter relationship to ds 2 = jL( d ^(\ 2 ^ ds=-^=dVM d m V /' y/d mo Rq Vdomo [y/M - \fM~o) , where M = M{s = 0) which defines the invariant magnitude of an arbitrary radial displacement from the origin purely in terms of the mass-model representation M. = d$M + mi. By definition, this s the invariant (or physical) measure associated with an finite radial displacement, R, for which an arbitrary calibration has so far been assumed. We can now remove the arbitrariness associated with this calibration by enforcing the identity R = s. To summarize, with the latter identification, the natural physical calibration for the radial scale is given by R R ° where Ai is the value of M. at R = 0. M - y/M>) , (10) 5.2 The Euclidean metric and a fractal D = 2 matter distribution Remembering M. = doM+rrii (see §4§ and noting that M(R = 0) = necessarily, then A4q = mi and so ( TTOl l can be equivalently arranged as M Vd m — n2 R + v m i Ra (11) Using M. = d M + mi again, then the mass-distribution function can be expressed in terms of the invariant radial displacement as (l) 2+ VT(l) which, for the particular case mi = becomes M = m Q (R/ R Q ) 2 . Reference to (jHJ) shows that, with this mass distribution and d = 1, then g a b = S a b so that the three-space space becomes ordinary Euclidean space. Thus, whilst we have yet to show that a globally inertial space can be associated with a non-trivial global matter distribution (since no temporal dimension, and hence no dynamics has been introduced), we have shown that a globally Euclidean space can be associated with a non-trivial matter distribution, and that this distribution is necessarily fractal with D = 2. Note also that, on a large enough scale and for arbitrary values of mi, (TT2l shows that ra- dial distance varies as the square-root of mass from the chosen origin - or, equivalently, the mass varies as R 2 . Consequently, on sufficiently large scales Euclidean space is irreducibly related to a quasi-fractal, D = 2, matter distributions. Since M/R 2 w m /i?Q on a large enough scale then, for the remainder of this paper, the notation go = mo/R^ is employed. 11 6 The temporal dimension So far, the concept of 'time' has only entered the discussion in a qualitative way in ^2] - it has not entered in any quantitative way and, until it does, there can be no discussion of dynamical processes. Since, in its most general definition, time is a parameter which orders change within a sys- tem, then a necessary pre-requisite for its quantitative definition is a notion of change within the universe. The most simple notion of change which can be defined in the universe is that of changing relative spatial displacements of the objects within it. Since our model universe is populated solely by primitive galaxies which possess only the property of enumerability (and hence quantification in terms of the amount of material present) then, in effect, all change is gravitational change. This fact is incorporated into the cosmology to be derived by constrain- ing all particle displacements to satisfy the Weak Equivalence Principle. We are then led to a Lagrangian description of particle motions in which the Lagrange density is degree zero in its temporal-ordering parameter. From this, it follows that the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations form an incomplete set. The origin of this problem traces back to the fact that, because the Lagrangian density is degree zero in the temporal ordering parameter, it is then invariant with respect to any transformation of this parameter which preserves the ordering. This implies that, in general, temporal ordering parameters cannot be identified directly with physical time - they merely share one essential characteristic. This situation is identical to that encountered in the Lagrangian formulation of General Relativity; there, the situation is resolved by defining the concept of 'particle proper time'. In the present case, this is not an option because the notion of particle proper time in- volves the prior definition of a system of observer's clocks - so that some notion of clock-time is factored into the prior assumptions upon which General Relativity is built. In the present case, it turns out that the isotropies already imposed on the system conspire to provide an automatic resolution of the problem which is consistent with the already assumed interpretation of 'time' as a measure of ordered change in the model universe. To be specific, it turns out that the elapsed time associated with any given particle displacement is proportional, via a scalar field, to the invariant spatial measure attached to that displacement. Thus, physical time is defined directly in terms of the invariant measures of process within the model universe and, furthermore, local conditions affect clock rates. 7 Dynamical constraints in the model universe Firstly, and as already noted, we are assuming that our notional universe is populated exclusively by primitive objects which possess solely the property of enumeration, and hence quantification. Consequently, all motions in this universe are effectively gravitational, and we model this cir- cumstance by constraining all such motions to satisfy the Weak Equivalence Principle by which we mean that the trajectory of a body is independent of its internal constitution. This constraint can be expressed as: 12 CI Particle trajectories are independent of the specific mass values of the particles concerned; Secondly, given the isotropy conditions imposed on the model universe from the chosen origin, symmetry arguments lead to the conclusion that the net action of the whole universe of particles acting on any given single particle is such that any net acceleration of the particle must always appear to be directed through the coordinate origin. Note that this conclusion is independent of any notions of retarded or instantaneous action. This constraint can then be stated as: C2 Any acceleration of any given material particle must necessarily be along the line connecting the particular particle to the coordinate origin. 8 Gravitational trajectories Suppose p and q are two arbitrarily chosen point coordinates on the trajectory of the chosen particle, and suppose that j6]) is integrated between these points to give the scalar invariant I(p,q) = J {^f) a/ driidx 1 = J ^-^=^ y/gijd^dxK (13) Then, in accordance with the foregoing interpretation, I(p, q) gives a scalar record of how the particle has moved between p and q defined with respect to the particle's continually changing relationship with the mass model, M(R). Now suppose I(p, q) is minimized with respect to choice of the trajectory connecting p and q, then this minimizing trajectory can be interpreted as a geodesic in the Riemannian space which has g a b as its metric tensor. Given that g a b is defined in terms of the mass model M(R) - the existence of which is independent of any notion of 'inertial mass', then the existence of the metric space, and of geodesic curves within it, is likewise explicitly independent of any con- cept of inertial-mass. It follows that the identification of the particle trajectory R with these geodesies means that particle trajectories are similarly independent of any concept of inertial mass, and can be considered as the modelling step defining that general subclass of trajectories which conform to that characteristic phenomenology of gravitation defined by condition CI of m 9 The equations of motion Whilst the mass distribution, represented by A4. has been explicitly determined in terms of the geodesic distance at ( ITT! ), it is convenient to develop the theory in terms of unspecified M.. The geodesic equations in the space with the metric tensor (jSJ) can be obtained, in the usual way, by defining the Lagrangian density £ "(vfe) v ^ iW= (vfe)^( ft ' ft ) +B * 2 ) 1/2 ' (14) 13 where x l = dx % /dt, etc., and writing down the Euler-Lagrange equations (15) where R = dH/dt and A' = cL4/<i$, etc. By identifying particle trajectories with geodesic curves, this equation is now interpreted as the equation of motion, referred to the chosen origin, of a single particle satisfying condition CI of $3 However, noting that the variational principle, (fT3L is of order zero in its temporal ordering parameter, we can conclude that the principle is invariant with respect to arbitrary transfor- mations of this parameter; in turn, this means that the temporal ordering parameter cannot be identified with physical time. This problem manifests itself formally in the statement that the equations of motion (fT5l) do not form a complete set, so that it becomes necessary to specify some extra condition to close the system. A similar circumstance arises in General Relativity when the equations of motion are derived from an action integral which is formally identical to ( fT3l ). In that case, the system is closed by specifying the arbitrary time parameter to be the 'proper time', so that dr = C{x^dx 3 ) -> C(x\ — ) = 1, (16) dr which is then considered as the necessary extra condition required to close the system. In the present circumstance, we are rescued by the, as yet, unused condition C2. 10 Physical time 10.1 Completion of equations of motion Consider C2, which states that any particle accelerations must necessarily be directed through the coordinate origin. This latter condition simply means that the equations of motion must have the general structure R = G(t, R, R)R, for scalar function G(t, R, R). In other words, (fT5l) satisfies condition C2 if the coefficient of R is zero, so that 2A'$ - 2^aJ = - ^6 = | - £ = k A, (17) for arbitrary constant k which is necessarily positive since A > and C > 0. The condition (fT7l ). which guarantees (C2), can be considered as the condition required to close the incomplete set ( TT51) and is directly analogous to (fTB"L the condition which defines 'proper time' in General Relativity. 14 10.2 Physical time defined as process Equation ( 1171 1 can be considered as that equation which removes the pre-existing arbitrariness in the 'time' parameter by defining physical time:- from (11711 and (TT4l) we have C 2 = k 2 A 2 -> A (R • R) + B& = 2g k 2 A 2 -> >l, r i'-i J = 2g k 2 A 2 (18) so that, in explicit terms, physical time is defined by the relation dt 2 = ( - — 7-75— To I Qijdx l dx^ where A = -—. (19) \2g k 2 A 2 J^ $ y J In short, the elapsing of time is given a direct physical interpretation in terms of the process of displacement in the model universe. Finally, noting that, by (PT9|) . the dimensions of k\ are those of L 6 /[T 2 x M 2 ], then the fact that go = uiq/Rq (cf $5]) suggests the change of notation k$ oc v^/g^, where t>o is a constant having the dimensions (but not the interpretation) of 'velocity'. So, as a means of making the dimensions which appear in the development more transparent, it is found convenient to use the particular replacement k 2 = v 2 /^ 2 ^ 2 ). With this replacement, the definition of physical time, given at (fl9l) , becomes dt 2 = (^py) gijdx'dxi. (20) Since, as is easily seen from the definition of g a b given in $H gijdx l dx^ is necessarily finite and non-zero for a non-trivial displacement c/R 10.3 The necessity of vl ^ Equation (|20l provides a definition of physical time in terms of basic process (displacement) in the model universe. Since the parameter Vq occurs nowhere else, except in its explicit position in (pOl . then it is clear that setting v 2 = is equivalent to physical time becoming undefined. Therefore, of necessity, Vq 7^ and all non-zero finite displacements are associated with a non-zero finite elapsed physical time. 11 The cosmological potential The model is most conveniently interpreted when expressed in potential terms and so, in the following, it is shown how this is done. 11.1 The equations of motion: potential form From fTOl when ( fTTl) is used in ( fTST ) there results 2AK + (b'§ 2 + 25$ - A' (R ■ R,) - 2^-B® 2 J R = 0. (21) 15 V = C --(R-b) = Co - 7 ^-A+— $ 2 , (22) Suppose we define a function V according to V = C — ^R • Ftj /2, for some arbitrary constant C ; then, by p} 2 V J u 4rf^ where A and .B are defined at ([13). With unit vector, R, then appendix iBl shows how this function can be used to express ( 1211 in the potential form dV - R= — -R 23 ar so that V is a potential function, and Co is the arbitrary constant usually associated with a potential function. 11.2 The potential function, V, as a function of R From (l22l . we have 2C - 2V = R 2 + R 2 6 2 = -f-A - ^i? 2 i? 2 so that is effectively given in terms of R and R. In order to clarify things further, we now eliminate the explicit appearance of R. Since all forces are central, then angular momentum is conserved; consequently, after using conserved angular momentum, h, and the definitions of A, B and M. given in £0] the foregoing equations can be written as 2C - 62 p2^2 _ 2 | H | dQ-l ( 6 mi V 2 2 ' dorm ( 2m lV 2 h2 \ | 1 mi / m x v 2 fe2 \ so that K(-R) is effectively given by the right-hand side of (i24l) . 12 A discussion of the potential function It is clear from (l24l) that mi plays the role of the mass of the central source which generates the potential, V. A relatively detailed description of the behaviour of V is given in appendix [Cl where we find that there are two distinct classes of solution depending on the free parameters of the system. These classes can be described as: • A constant potential universe within which all points are dynamically indistinguishable; this corresponds to an inertial material universe, and arises in the case vn\ = 0, do — 1; • All other possibilities give rise to a 'distinguished origin' universe in which either: - there is a singularity at the centre, R = 0; 16 — or there is no singularity at R = and, instead, the origin is the centre of a non-trivial sphere of radius R m in > which acts as an impervious boundary between the exterior universe and the potential source. In effect, this sphere provides the source with a non-trivial spatial extension so that the classical notion of the massive point-source is avoided. Of these possibilities, the constant potential universe is the one which provides positive answers to our originally posed questions, and it is this which is discussed in detail in the following sections. However, of the two cases in the distinguished origin universe, the no-singularity case offers the interesting possibility of being able to model the gravitational effects created by a central massive source, but without the non-physical singularity at the origin. This case is mentioned here for future reference. 13 The fractal D = 2 inertial universe Reference to ([231) shows that the parameter choice mi = and d — 1 makes the potential function constant everywhere, whilst (fl2l) shows how, for this case, universal matter in an equi- librium universe is necessarily distributed as an exact fractal with D = 2. Thus, the fractal D = 2 material universe is necessarily a globally inertial equilibrium universe, and the questions originally posed in §3.11 are finally answered. 13.1 Implications for theories of gravitation Given that gravitational phenomena are usually considered to arise as mass-driven perturbations of flat inertial backgrounds, then the foregoing result - to the effect that the inertial background is necessarily associated with a non-trivial fractal matter distribution - must necessarily give rise to completely new perspectives about the nature and properties of gravitational phenomena. However, as we show in §13.21 the kinematics in this inertial universe is unusual, and suggests that the inertial material distribution is more properly interpreted as a quasi-photon fractal gas out of which (presumably) we can consider ordinary material to condense in some fashion. 13.2 The quasi-photon fractal gas For the case m\ — 0, do — 1, the definition M at f TT2l) together with the definitions of A and B in SjUgive so that, by ( 1221 (remembering that go = m /Rl) we have R RJ = vl (25) for all displacements in the model universe. It is (almost) natural to assume that the constant Vq in (l25l) simply refers to the constant velocity of any given particle, and likewise to assume 17 that this can differ between particles. However, each of these assumptions would be wrong since - as we now show - Vq is, firstly, more properly interpreted as a conversion factor from spatial to temporal units and, secondly, is a global constant which applies equally to all particles. To understand these points, we begin by noting that ([25l) is a special case of (fT8l) and so, by (Tl9l) . is more accurately written as which, by the considerations of §10.21 we recognize as the definition of the elapsed time expe- rienced by any particle undergoing a spatial displacement <iR in the model inertial universe. Since this universe is isotropic about all points, then there is nothing which can distinguish be- tween two separated particles (other than their separateness) undergoing displacements of equal magnitudes; consequently, each must be considered to have experienced equal elapsed times. It follows from this that Vo is not to be considered as a locally defined particle speed, but is a globally defined constant which has the effect of converting between spatial and temporal units of measurement - that is, it is more accurately thought of as being a conversion factor from length scales to time scales - very much like Bondi's interpretation of c, the light speed. Thus, one can think of the matter distribution in the equilibrium universe as similar to a photon gas with the Bondian complexity that this 'gas' arbitrates between length scales and time scales - within the context of the theory, this is a direct consequence of the fact that time arises automatically as a measure of change within the particle distribution very much as Mach conceived it. 14 Summary and Conclusions The idea that universal material might be distributed fractally, with fractal dimension 2, is a difficult one to comprehend since it appears contrary to all common-sensical notions of how the Universe "should be". As an example of how-deeply entrenched such ideas are, we need only cite the hidden assumptions of homogeneity which underly statistical tools such as two-point cor- relation function methods, widely used until very recently to determine the nature of material distributions in the Universe. However, this paper argues that the problem goes very much deeper than that, and has as its source the notion of "space" as an objective reality which functions as a container of material - a notion which can be traced from Democritus, through Newton and even to Einstein (in prac- tice). The opposing notion, associated with the names of Aristotle, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach - and the one developed here - is that, in effect, what we call "space" is a secondary construct projected out of relationships between material objects, which are primary. This paper has shown how these ideas can be given quantitative expression and leads directly to the conclusion that the relationship between the secondary construct of "space" and the primary objects which appear to be contained within "space" is given by dt 2 = — (dR-dR) (26) o 18 where m ,mi and do are parameters. In other words, on sufficiently large scales, the relationship between "space" and the material which it "appears" to contain can be naturally interpreted as the statement that space is irreducibly associated with a fractal, D = 2, distribution of material within the Universe. The discussion which led to the foregoing conclusion also unavoidably entailed a correspond- ing discussion concerning the nature of "time" - as Mach himself pointed out, where "time" is concerned, the most we can ever do is to define the "time required for process A to occur" in terms of the "time required for process B to occur". For example, "I can walk 100 miles between one sunrise and the next." From this viewpoint, it is arguable, for example, that the individual proton - never observed to decay, and therefore a stranger to change - exists out of time. But the internal distribution of an assembly of (labelled) protons, on the other hand, does change and a sequence of snapshots of such a changing assembly could be considered as an evolutionary sequence defining of itself the passage of time. In effect, "time" is defined as a metaphor for "ordered change within a physical system"; this is the definition of "time" which arises au- tomatically from the considerations which lead to the fractal Universe above - there is a set of particles which possess only the property of enumerability from which the concept of "time" arises as a metaphor for "ordered change". Finally, on sufficiently large scales and according to the foregoing analysis, space & time is necessarily inertial (to any required degree of approximation), and this has fundamental con- sequences for gravitation theory: specifically, since gravitational phenomena are conventionally considered to arise as mass-driven perturbations of a flat inertial background, then the phe- nomenology predicted by the analysis - that a flat inertial background is irreducibly associated with a non-trivial fractal distribution of material - must necessarily lead to novel insights into the nature and causes of gravitational phenomena. A A Resolution of the Metric Tensor The general system is given by d 2 M _ k dM 9ab ~ dx a dx b afe &^' •/, = 1 k j ( d 9bj , dg ja ()</„ 2 \ dx a dx b dxi and the first major problem is to express g a b in terms of the reference scalar, M. The key to this is to note the relationship f) 2 M ' ' M'S ab + M"x a x\ dx a dx b f/d<5> 2 , < immediately suggests the general structure where M' = dM/d<5>, M" = d 2 M/d<5> 2 , $ = R 2 /2 and R 2 = (x 1 ) 2 + (x 2 f + (a; 3 ) 2 , since this g ab = A5 ab + Bx a x\ (27) 19 for unknown functions, A and B. It is easily found that so that, with some effort, where A Sab - B A + 2B& x a x b Kb ~ B 2A(A + 25$) Ho Hi A'(x a 5 bk + x b 5 ak - x k 5 : abi B'x a x b x k + 2Bb ah x K and H 2 = A'{2x a x b x k - 2§x k 5 ab ) + 2$B'x a x b x k + 4$Bx k 5, ab ■ Consequently, 9ab <9 2 M rk dM_ dx a dx b ab dx k A + A!$ A + 2B& + x ^(m"-m-(P^-)). V \A + 2B$JJ Comparison with (127]) now leads directly to rl ( A + A'$ \ .4 M A + 2B§ ) M' A + 25$ ) (A' + B'$\ B = M" — Ml , . \A + 2B$J The first of these can be rearranged as M' _£ f(A<S>)> 2$ V A A 2$ or as M' A + 2B& A and these expressions can be used to eliminate B in the second equation. After some minor rearrangement, the resulting equation is easily integrated to give, finally, A = cLqM + mi A d n M'M' 2A<& 20 B Conservative Form of Equations of Motion From (1221 ). we have 1 ^\ k 2 A B • from which we easily find Vs ^.H) = -JL. + Vl (28) dV_ = dV dVR dR = dR dRR 2 2A V A J A Since i? 2 + = $, then the above expression leads to R = 1 $ $ 2 H $ R cLR V 2 + 2A 2A 2 + ,1 ! 2AR + 2A— R = 0, dR Writing ([23]) as and using the above expression, we get the equation of motion as (A'B \ -klAA' + B'§ 2 - —® 2 + 2fi$ J R 0. (29) Finally, from (1281) . we have fc 2 A = |<i> 2 +(R-R which, when substituted into ( |29jl . gives f j2Tll . C Outline analysis of the potential function It is quite plain from (1241) that, for any mi 7^ 0, then the model universe has a preferred centre and that the parameter mi (which has dimensions of mass) plays a role in the potential V which is analogous to the source mass in a Newtonian spherical potential - that is, the parameter mi can be identified as the mass of the potential source in the model universe. However, setting m x = is not sufficient to guarantee a constant potential field since any d ^ 1 also provides the model universe with a preferred centre. The role of do is most simply discussed in the limiting case of mi = 0: in this case, the second equation of (l24l) becomes tf + R*9 2 = v 2 -(d -l)^- 2 . (30) If do < 1 then |R| — ► 00 as R — > so that a singularity exists. Conversely, remembering that v > (cf §10.31) then, if d > 1, equation (1301 restricts real events to the exterior of the sphere defined by R 2 = (d — l)h 2 /v 2 . In this case, the singularity is avoided and the central 'massless particle' is given the physical property of 'finite extension'. In the more realistic case for which 21 mi > 0, reference to (1241) shows that the R = singularity is completely avoided whenever h 2 > miv 2 /dlgo since then a 'finite extension' property for the central massive particle always exists. Conversely, a singularity will necessarily exist whenever h 2 < ttiiVq/ 'd^go. In other words, the model universe has a preferred centre when either mi > 0, in which case the source of the potential is a massive central particle having various properties depending on the value of do, or when mi = and di ^ 0. References [I] Charlier, C.V.L., 1908, Astronomi och Fysik 4, 1 (Stockholm) [2] Charlier, C.V.L., 1922, Ark. Mat. Astron. Physik 16, 1 (Stockholm) [3] Charlier, C.V.L., 1924, Proc. Astron. Soc. Pac. 37, 177 [4] De Vaucouleurs, C, 1970, Sci 167, 1203 [5] Peebles, P.J.E., 1980, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. [6] Baryshev, Yu V., Sylos Labini, F., Montuori, M., Pietronero, L. 1995 Vistas in Astronomy 38, 419 [7] Huchra, J., Davis, M., Latham, D.,Tonry, J., 1983, ApJS 52, 89 [8] Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.P., Chincarini, G.L., 1986, ApJ 300, 77 [9] De Lapparent, V., Geller,M.J., Huchra, J.P, 1988, ApJ 332, 44 [10] Broadhurst, T.J., Ellis, R.S., Koo, D.C., Szalay, A.S., 1990, Nat 343, 726 [II] Da Costa, L.N., Geller, M.J., Pellegrini, PS., Latham, D.W., Fairall, A.P, Marzke, R.O., Willmer, C.N.A., Huchra, J.P, Calderon, J.H., Ramella, M., Kurtz, M.J., 1994, ApJ 424, LI [12] Vettolani, G., et al., in: Proc. of Schloss Rindberg Workshop: Studying the Universe With Clusters of Galaxies [13] Joyce, M., Montuori, M., Sylos Labini, F., 1999, Astrophys. J. 514, L5 [14] Sylos Labini, F., Montuori, M., 1998, Astron. & Astrophys., 331, 809 [15] Sylos Labini, F., Montuori, M., Pietronero, L., 1998, Phys. Lett., 293, 62 [16] Wu, K.K.S., Lahav, O., Rees, M.J., 1999, Nature 397, 225 [17] Scaramella, R., Guzzo, L., Zamorani, G., Zucca, E., Balkowski, C, Blanchard, A., Cappi, A., Cayatte, V., Chincarini, G., Collins, C, Fiorani, A., Maccagni, D., MacGillivray, H., Maurogordato, S., Merighi, R., Mignoli, M., Proust, D., Ramella, M., Stirpe, G.M., Vet- tolani, G. 1998 A&A 334, 404 22 [18] Martinez, V.J., PonsBorderia, M.J., Moyeed, R.A., Graham, M.J. 1998 MNRAS 298, 1212 [19] Labini, F.S., Gabrielli, A., 2000, Scaling and fluctuations in galaxy distribution: two tests to probe large scale structures, |astro-ph 0008047 [20] Gabrielli, A., Sylos Labini, F., 2001, Europhys. Lett. 54 (3), 286 [21] Pietronero, L., Sylos Labini, F., 2000, Physica A, (280), 125 [22] Hogg, D.W., Eistenstein, D.J., Blanton M.R., Bahcall N.A, Brinkmann, J., Gunn J.E., Schneider D.P 2005 ApJ, 624, 54 [23] Sylos Labini, P., Vasilyev, N.L., Baryshev, Y.V., Archiv.Astro.ph/0610938 [24] Newton, I., Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, translated by LB. Cohen & A. Whitman, University of California Press, 1999 [25] Aristotle, Categories, in R. McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, New York, 1941. [26] Aristotle, Physics, translated by P.H. Wicksteed & F.M. Cornford, Leob Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1929 [27] Leibniz, G.W., Philosophical Essays, Edited and translated by R. Ariew & D.Garber, Hack- ett Publishing Co, Indianapolis, 1989 [28] Alexander, H.G., The Leibniz- Clarke Correspondence, Manchester University Press, 1984. [29] Berkeley, G., Of motion, or the principle and nature of motion and the cause of the commu- nication of motions fLatin: De Motu) in M.R.Ayers (ed) George Berkeley's Philosophical Works, Everyman, London, 1992. [30] Mach, E., The Science of Mechanics - a Critical and Historical Account of its Development Open Court, La Salle, 1960 [31] Einstein, A., The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, in A. Einstein, H.A.Lorentz, H.Weyl & H.Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952 [32] Sciama, D.W., 1953, On the Origin of Inertia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc, 113, 34 [33] Sachs, M., General Relativity and Matter, Reidal, Dordrecht, 1982 [34] Sachs, M., Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity, Reidal, Dordrecht 1986 [35] Ghosh, A., Origin of Inertia, Apeiron, Montreal, 2000 [36] Assis, A.K.T., Relational Mechanics, Apeiron, Montreal, 1999 23